Can someone explain aircraft production and assignment

[alant]

What's happening:

I have several new CVs in active service, but they have empty squadrons of the latest model. I can understand it taking awhile to fill a squadron, but 6 months or more???

Meanwhile the game is re-equipping existing squadrons on older carriers/land bases with the new model.

AND

The older models now have lots and lots of planes sitting around On Stock . . while my new CVs are mostly useless and ineffective (I hope they don't get sucked into battle under-equipped like this, but have no way to prevent it.) Seriously, a 3rd generation dive bomber is better than no dive bomber.


In real life no right thinking navy would assign aircraft this way, ALL the squadrons would be assigned aircraft if there is sufficient stock (even obsolete stock) and the newest (best?) active ships would receive priority. Older models from squadrons being re-equipped would cascade down (re-equip) to lower priority squadrons/ships/bases, not sit On Stock.

The game seems to assign new models to squadrons based on the relative seniority (age) of the squadrons instead of on the number (lack thereof) of aircraft in existing squadrons.


So my question, besides "what the hell is going on" is:

QUESION: "How does aircraft production/pilot training work and what can players do to guide the game in the right direction?"

[gurudennis]

Nov 23, 2020 10:50:25 GMT -6 alant said:

I have several new CVs in active service, but they have empty squadrons of the latest model. I can understand it taking awhile to fill a squadron, but 6 months or more???

Meanwhile the game is re-equipping existing squadrons on older carriers/land bases with the new model.

To the best of my understanding, this should not be happening. If you have older models in stock, even ones explicitly marked as obsolete, they will be automatically used to fill any underequipped squadrons within 1 month. What you are describing must be a bug.

Try deleting the empty squadrons and either a) re-creating them manually, or b) auto-assigning squadrons when the game reminds you that the CV is under capacity.

Nov 23, 2020 10:50:25 GMT -6 alant said:

my new CVs are mostly useless and ineffective (I hope they don't get sucked into battle under-equipped like this, but have no way to prevent it.)

To definitively prevent any ship from entering combat, simply put it in Reserve or Mothball.

[alant]

Quote - To definitively prevent any ship from entering combat, simply put it in Reserve or Mothball.

Won't that have negative effects on the squadrons assigned to that carrier that do have aircraft and to the carrier's readiness/training level?

I will try deleting and recreating. It's not the only problem with aircraft assignment, but it is the worst problem.

[alant]

Okay, so I disbanded 3 squadrons of dive bombers on 3 different ships, - Ticonderoga, Hancock and Vicksburg - then manually created new squadrons and ran a turn. The game "re-equipped" those new squadrons with the same latest model Dive bomber Helldiver D as they had when I disbanded them. I lost all the experience they had gained.

Meanwhile multiple squadrons on 4 other squadrons on 3 other CVs (Lexington, Saratoga and Ranger) were reequipped with Helldiver D (red lined "New CVs). 




Note then number of aircraft on each of the CVs listed on the above turn messages report. Now the 3 carriers I disbanded/created squadrons on were not the only ones that are short (marked with red line).
There were no battles in May, so no casualties.

[gurudennis]

Nov 23, 2020 15:48:19 GMT -6 alant said:

Quote - To definitively prevent any ship from entering combat, simply put it in Reserve or Mothball.

Won't that have negative effects on the squadrons assigned to that carrier that do have aircraft and to the carrier's readiness/training level?

It will (eventually) drop the experience level to Fair and the plane count to around 75% of full strength.

Nov 23, 2020 16:24:45 GMT -6 alant said:

Okay, so I disbanded 3 squadrons of dive bombers on 3 different ships, - Ticonderoga, Hancock and Vicksburg - then manually created new squadrons and ran a turn. The game "re-equipped" those new squadrons with the same latest model Dive bomber Helldiver D as they had when I disbanded them. I lost all the experience they had gained.

Meanwhile multiple squadrons on 4 other squadrons on 3 other CVs (Lexington, Saratoga and Ranger) were reequipped with Helldiver D (red lined "New CVs).

Looks about right to me. Given the sheer number of CVs, I bet you ran out of the older units? Eventually, all CVs will be equipped with the latest planes assuming the old ones are explicitly marked as Obsolete. In the interim, old equipment will be used on various carriers, but only up to however much you already have. I have seen relatively even distribution in the past, but YMMV.

I'm also not quite sure how the 1936 mod factors into this. Never played with it.

[alant]

There are hundreds and hundreds of older model Helldiver, Helldiver B, Helldiver C sitting on stock that could equip those empty squadrons.

This makes no sense to me.

Edit - there are exactly 1,026 older model Helldivers unassigned to squadrons.

[gurudennis]

Hmm, beats me. Time for William to visit the thread, perhaps

[rimbecano]

Create a thread on this issue in the bug reports forum, I'd say.

[williammiller]

We are looking at this in our internal issue threads, one of the Beta Testers has reported this as well.

[alant]

Nov 26, 2020 10:08:25 GMT -6 williammiller said:

We are looking at this in our internal issue threads, one of the Beta Testers has reported this as well.

Thanks for your attention.

Same game, another aircraft related issue - negative numbers of aircraft???

[alant]

Negative number of aircraft>

Fought a large battle with carriers that resulted in one case of negative numbers. When looking at the Scenario Results report I noticed more aircraft killed if you total the numbers in each category than listed as "Total Losses". Maybe this is normal, just the first I've noticed. Perhaps this is leading to negative numbers.

I'm going to take the -12/16 squadron off the carrier and put it at a land base, see what happens over time. In the past I've just disbanded them and created a new squadron.

Japanese carriers have been quite elusive over the last several battles. I can't seem to find them, but they have no trouble finding me. Luckily have 50% of my air groups made up of fighters has made it very costly for them. Perhaps they are also suffering from negative numbers.


 

Here is the offending ship's Air Group. Every squadron on this CV is equipped with 2nd (older) Generation models. As usual, the game insists on reequipping squadrons on oldest carriers first. I have one fighter squadron flying fighters 5 generations older than the current model. Stupid staff officers!!! (There are many hundreds of more modern models.)

[dia]

Dec 2, 2020 12:39:59 GMT -6 alant said:

Fought a large battle with carriers that resulted in one case of negative numbers. When looking at the Scenario Results report I noticed more aircraft killed if you total the numbers in each category than listed as "Total Losses". Maybe this is normal, just the first I've noticed. Perhaps this is leading to negative numbers.

I'm glad you brought this up. I've come across dozens of battle result screens where the reported number of aircraft losses per category/type do not make an inkling of sense when totaled. Typically it only happens in very large battles with large amounts of losses. I've usually just blew it off as a visual/reporting error like the varying ASW aircraft score. Here's one such example. The total loses reported is 71 less than the combined categorical losses on my side and 2 more on the enemy's side. This was taken from v1.22 I believe. 

[wlbjork]

All the columns are wrong - TB, MB and DB all show higher air-to-air losses than are credited in the total losses row, whilst F and PB don't add up correctly.

Bug report, especially if you have any more screenshots showing the issue.